Re: #635, Col. Hasler
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@...> wrote:
Regards
Robert Biegler
>http://hallman.org/bolger/Hasler/If I remember correctly, you bought the plans. Have you ever shown them to a boat builder to ask what it would cost? And have you ever put the lines into a programme that can calculate a stability curve?
> shows some preliminary isometrics of the design #635, Col. H.G. Hasler
Regards
Robert Biegler
http://hallman.org/bolger/Hasler/
shows some preliminary isometrics of the design #635, Col. H.G. Hasler
shows some preliminary isometrics of the design #635, Col. H.G. Hasler
> It looks like the box keel offers good weight carryingI share your concern about rocks. They can ruin a boater's dreams. I also share you admiration for PCB's cleverness in getting a high displacement hull form by combining two medium forms: the hull and the box keel. He used it in a number of other boats, and it does work. And it can be build on straight frames. A lot depends on what sailing performance you can live with.
> ability for moderate drag, moderate draft, and it's very
> strong compared to a fin keel. The hull shape looks pretty
> good for something made of flat plate material.
Other folks talked about plywood. I have not searched the canon, but I've reviewed my memory for other PCB designs that might offer enclosed cabins. For coastwise cruising, there are a couple. The Seabird '86 Navigator seems the most attractive to me. I don't think it's a blue water boat however.
Fan of PCB as I am, I think I would go with John Welsford's Swaggie for a minimum size, sail-from-inside, blue water cruiser.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Peter" <pvanderwaart@...> wrote:
As far as I understand the theory behind the design, for moderate angles of heel you can think of the boat as being a much smaller boat that happens to carry a bit of extra weight that contributes no stability but also causes little extra drag. That points towards a boat that would be faster on a reach than a more conventional hull with the same length and displacement, but would have limited sail carrying ability. The boat would become much stiffer at the moment the hull heels far enough that it tries to lever that box keel out of the water. However, that may also increase drag. I don't expect scintillating upwind performance. But then, the boat I sail at the moment is (at least in my hands) not so great upwind either, but quite amazing for its size on a reach. The Col Hasler could take me further and through a greater range of conditions, and I would consider living aboard. In fact, I would only invest the money a boat that large would cost if I expect to live aboard. That's one reason I asked about the weight budget. I live in Norway. I'd have to add quite a bit of extra insulation.
The berth I can get would be beyond a bridge. Masts in tabernacles mean I would not have to wait for bridge opening times. I would use Slieve McGalliard's split junk instead of the Chinese gaff. I like junk rigs, and the split junk seems about as good upwind as the average Bermudan, and better on other courses. (Slieve has some information in the junkrig group, if anyone wants to look up the rig.)
The Norwegian coast is mostly rock. I would like a boat that doesn't break on first contact with the ground. Metal hulls seem quite good in that respect, or Sven Yrvind's composite skin with a very thick foam core and a quite elastic skin. The flat plate design would also lend itself to that material, and I'd have most of the insulation I would need.
Bolger wrote the boat might actually be more economical if it were longer. I don't share the original client's concern with having a short boat, so I'd ask if the design could be stretched about 25%.
At the moment, I have no idea about the costs. The boat may simply be too expensive. Can anyone here judge what it might cost to have it built? Building it myself is not a practical option. I don't have the skills, and if I learned, and rented a space for as long as it would take me to build, that would probably cost more than getting a professional to do the job.
Regards
Robert Biegler
> I wonder if you would care to share what you like about this design,I read good things about the only comparable design I know, Larry Brown's Brendan the Navigator. I have a copy of his report and a few pictures on the AYRS group:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ayrs/files/Biegler/Look for a pdf named "Brendan the Navigator". It looks like the box keel offers good weight carrying ability for moderate drag, moderate draft, and it's very strong compared to a fin keel. The hull shape looks pretty good for something made of flat plate material.
As far as I understand the theory behind the design, for moderate angles of heel you can think of the boat as being a much smaller boat that happens to carry a bit of extra weight that contributes no stability but also causes little extra drag. That points towards a boat that would be faster on a reach than a more conventional hull with the same length and displacement, but would have limited sail carrying ability. The boat would become much stiffer at the moment the hull heels far enough that it tries to lever that box keel out of the water. However, that may also increase drag. I don't expect scintillating upwind performance. But then, the boat I sail at the moment is (at least in my hands) not so great upwind either, but quite amazing for its size on a reach. The Col Hasler could take me further and through a greater range of conditions, and I would consider living aboard. In fact, I would only invest the money a boat that large would cost if I expect to live aboard. That's one reason I asked about the weight budget. I live in Norway. I'd have to add quite a bit of extra insulation.
The berth I can get would be beyond a bridge. Masts in tabernacles mean I would not have to wait for bridge opening times. I would use Slieve McGalliard's split junk instead of the Chinese gaff. I like junk rigs, and the split junk seems about as good upwind as the average Bermudan, and better on other courses. (Slieve has some information in the junkrig group, if anyone wants to look up the rig.)
> and what use you would put it do.Living aboard, cruising as far as I can get during my holidays, leave the country on a long cruise the day after I retire, though that is still some time off.
The Norwegian coast is mostly rock. I would like a boat that doesn't break on first contact with the ground. Metal hulls seem quite good in that respect, or Sven Yrvind's composite skin with a very thick foam core and a quite elastic skin. The flat plate design would also lend itself to that material, and I'd have most of the insulation I would need.
Bolger wrote the boat might actually be more economical if it were longer. I don't share the original client's concern with having a short boat, so I'd ask if the design could be stretched about 25%.
At the moment, I have no idea about the costs. The boat may simply be too expensive. Can anyone here judge what it might cost to have it built? Building it myself is not a practical option. I don't have the skills, and if I learned, and rented a space for as long as it would take me to build, that would probably cost more than getting a professional to do the job.
Regards
Robert Biegler
| I always hoped Mr Bolger would draw up plans for this boat to be built in plywood. It would be a fantastic boat for my wife and I to use when cruising. I always admired it but am getting a bit to old to build it now. A tremendous amount of work went into designing it. I've read everything ever written about this design. I sure do like it. Bud --- OnThu, 6/24/10,prairiedog2332<arvent@...>wrote: |
A bit of a write up here, but not complete.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger_study_plans_only/files/Col.%20H.%2\
0G.%20Hasler%20%23635/>
I believe the requirement was for a minimum solo circumnavigator. But
PCB&F did mention they would have preferred a bit longer hull design -
perhaps 30 ft.
I made an inquiry one time about a Long Micro Navigator design and
received a hand-written reply by Mr. Bolger suggesting the Col. Hasler
instead. They were hoping to develop it in plywood instead of steel but
were too busy with other projects at the time.
Personally I found it way too complicated to consider, compared to
adding a pilothouse to a Long Micro.
Nels
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger_study_plans_only/files/Col.%20H.%2\
0G.%20Hasler%20%23635/>
I believe the requirement was for a minimum solo circumnavigator. But
PCB&F did mention they would have preferred a bit longer hull design -
perhaps 30 ft.
I made an inquiry one time about a Long Micro Navigator design and
received a hand-written reply by Mr. Bolger suggesting the Col. Hasler
instead. They were hoping to develop it in plywood instead of steel but
were too busy with other projects at the time.
Personally I found it way too complicated to consider, compared to
adding a pilothouse to a Long Micro.
Nels
--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, bud e <bud_4444@...> wrote:
>
> Peter, will you please send me a link to # 635 Bolger design? �I
didn't know Bolger make plans for this design. �I always admired
it. �Thanks for your help.
> Bud �
>
> --- On Thu, 6/24/10, Peter pvanderwaart@... wrote:
>
> From: Peter pvanderwaart@...
> Subject: [bolger] Re: #635, Col. Hasler
> To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 6:53 PM
>
>
> > I have become interested in Bolger's design #635, the Col. Hasler...
>
> I wonder if you would care to share what you like about this design,
and what use you would put it do. I confess that while I share (in the
abstract, not based on experience) some of the concerns that shaped it,
the resulting design doesn't really appeal too much. At the least, there
are other designs that appeal to me more for the same use.
>
> I rather suspect that it would be slow, wouldn't go upwind in any
weather well, and wouldn't get upwind at all against a strong wind and
big sea. But I've been wrong before.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!!� Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging
dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred'
posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930,
Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:� bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion: bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
>
| Peter, will you please send me a link to # 635 Bolger design? I didn't know Bolger make plans for this design. I always admired it. Thanks for your help. Bud --- OnThu, 6/24/10, Peter<pvanderwaart@...>wrote: |
> I have become interested in Bolger's design #635, the Col. Hasler...I wonder if you would care to share what you like about this design, and what use you would put it do. I confess that while I share (in the abstract, not based on experience) some of the concerns that shaped it, the resulting design doesn't really appeal too much. At the least, there are other designs that appeal to me more for the same use.
I rather suspect that it would be slow, wouldn't go upwind in any weather well, and wouldn't get upwind at all against a strong wind and big sea. But I've been wrong before.
Peter
> Only 495kg is left for crew, water, food, clothes, etc.Yes.
> Does that sound about right?
I have become interested in Bolger's design #635, the Col. Hasler (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger_study_plans_only/files/Col.%20H.%20G.%20Hasler%20%23635/)
I have been wondering about the weight budget. I went to the trouble of reconstructing an approximate set of lines in Freeship, and find the total skin area is about 40sqm. The material is 3mm thick steel plate, with a density of about 8kg/litre. The skin weight is then 24kg/sqm. At 40 sqm, that gives a weight of 960kg. I am guessing that the weight of internal frames, bulkheads, tanks, interior joinery and so on is at least one third of the skin weight. That would add another 340 kg for a total of 1280kg. Steel boats are usually sprayed with foam on the inside, to give some insulation. Let's say 30 sqm to a depth of 5cm at a density of 0.05kg/litre. That would add another 75kg. Say I add 50kg for the rig, 50 kg for ground tackle, 50kg for the outboard and fuel. We're up to 1505kg. The design displacement is 3 tons. Ballast is typically between one third to one half of displacement. If we say one third, that's another 1000kg. Only 495kg is left for crew, water, food, clothes, etc. Does that sound about right?
Regards
Robert Biegler
I have been wondering about the weight budget. I went to the trouble of reconstructing an approximate set of lines in Freeship, and find the total skin area is about 40sqm. The material is 3mm thick steel plate, with a density of about 8kg/litre. The skin weight is then 24kg/sqm. At 40 sqm, that gives a weight of 960kg. I am guessing that the weight of internal frames, bulkheads, tanks, interior joinery and so on is at least one third of the skin weight. That would add another 340 kg for a total of 1280kg. Steel boats are usually sprayed with foam on the inside, to give some insulation. Let's say 30 sqm to a depth of 5cm at a density of 0.05kg/litre. That would add another 75kg. Say I add 50kg for the rig, 50 kg for ground tackle, 50kg for the outboard and fuel. We're up to 1505kg. The design displacement is 3 tons. Ballast is typically between one third to one half of displacement. If we say one third, that's another 1000kg. Only 495kg is left for crew, water, food, clothes, etc. Does that sound about right?
Regards
Robert Biegler